Surely you do not see a contradiction in these two statements. What is not clarified in the article by the Vatican, but which would be or at least should be par for the course for a Catholic priest, is the understanding which the Philippines Cardinal noted. Is that shocking to you ? There is not an iota of difference between their thinking. The term 'gay' is a misnomer and it is not suitable in this context. 'Homosexual' is the more appropriate term and those with homosexual tendencies are more than welcome in any church in the world. But those with no capacity to live a celibate life be they homo- or hetero-sexual have no business being in the priesthood. I fail to see where the interest lies. Or, more to the point, it is interesting that you see it as interesting. You are more than capable of reasoning well, as I have seen you do so,why drop the ball on this one?

The term used by the Secretary of State is 'homosexual' not 'gay.' 'Gay' is a political definition created by homosexuals to further their agenda. It should not be used by any one in Holy Orders as it is a contradiction of what the Church teaches about human sexuality! The only interesting thing about the second statement is why it does not conform to the first. It should after all: he is a Roman Catholic Cardinal!

Anthony wrote: '''Gay' is a political definition created by homosexuals to further their agenda.'' This is, of course, rather silly. Crediting mere linguistic shift to some shadowy ''homosexual agenda'' is a perspective only seen from the heights of paranoia. That said, the difference of opinion between the two stories is interesting, in that they talk about the same thing: commitment to celibacy. But they use such different vocabularies (Bertone's lexicon seems especially loaded), it's entirely too easy to misunderstand what they're saying. Which is a shame. World leaders should be able to communicate clearly.